Contents

I created this set after some thinking and map-gazing. It allows for detailed illustration of how a boundary line can interact with a rail track. In some locations, rail tracks are used as the boundary delimiters both linear and punctual.

I chose the same color and dashing-size already in use but intentionally created an independently named set, because of its shortcomings as percieved by me:

The contrast between (GRENZE) and (eGRENZE) (and their derivatives) shows that two different concepts (international border / customs office, and generic boundary line) were shoehorned in a single name. Not only a dashed line is not the disused state of a toll signal (cp. (ABZrg) vs. (eABZrg)), but the toll icon itself should probably be best used to indicate a customs check in a route (akin to, say, (TRAJEKT)), and let all boundaries (incl. current international) be dashed lines with the text part of the diagram explaining which entities do those lines divide.

Against the current trend in BS community, which insists on overlaying and abhorrs new icons, the existing set of boundary icons offers a wide range of pre-set arrangements for something which, more than any other, is an overlay not only by its aspect but by its very nature — boundary lines are litterally overlaid on the landscape.

So, my final proposal would be to generalize the use of overlaid black-dashed boundary lines over the track diagrams, having widened the available tool box to match any reasonable need, eventually renaming GRENZE2 to GRENZE, and re-purpose the toll signal (GRENZE legende) as an icon for customs operations — eventually renaming it ZOLL and creating a dimmed-out version for its disused state.

(GRENZE legende) is NO toll signal, it's the sign of an existing international border, e.g. Europe has many international borders but no toll booths at the border. (exGRENZE legende) is the sign for any erstwhile or minor border, whatever you like. We don't need no third icon! axpdeHello! 13:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, (GRENZE legende) looks much like a toll sign to me, and I can think of several real-world situation where we gain from separating the concept of track crossing a boder line (incl. an international border line) from the concept of halting a train for customs inspection — which may or may not coincide geographically, and thus need to be represented separately in a railway diagram.

Besides, the preffix "e" normally means erstwhile, like you said, it only means minor in this specific use — and that’s the naming inconsistency I want to address, too.

There is no sense in changing uses of a senseless name just because there’s a (wild?) lot of it? Why? Hm, I remember having hundreds of CONT icons poiting to the wrong direction in wp:pt (and probably in many others) because new names were decided for them. If anything, GRENZE is used much less than CONT.

Anyway, I wanted to avoid this while the dicussion is going on, by creating GRENZE2, leaving any possible renaming for later, after a consensus was reached. But Axpde decided that GRENZE2q should not exist as a duplicate of (exGRENZE legende) and deleted it (now using his admin right to prevent me or anyone else to recreate it with that name — epytom or reasonable discussion spirit), muddling the matters.

Still about the confusingly conflated concept of former boundary lines versus non-international boundary lines: We need to have a namespace slot available for icons depicting actual former boundary lines, surely to be rendered as dashed lines in gray. (This is historically important in some lines — from the top of my head, the post-WWI boundaries in the Middle East, and probably many others.) I’d create and upload the lot, consistently named with an "ex" preffix, but I wont be doing it to find out that Axpde deleted them all out of spite the next day. --Tuvalkin (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, my suggestion is explained above, you’re mixing it up: I’m only interested in dashed black lines to be overlaid (at least for now), and I want to have nothing to do with toll signs: I want a set of icons to illustrate in BS diagrams the relative topology of boundary lines (international or any other) and railways; cannot do that with toll signs. This is not the time nor place to discuss the naming mess in the GRENZE icon family.

Concerning the shaded icons, Axpde, and as said, I’m ready to create them all if you promise you wont use your admin rights to delete them, as you did with BSicon_GRENZE2q.svg

I have no clout whatsoever in w:en: and I dont even read German. These are new icons to be added to a set that is in Commons for all projects to use. Therefore the proper place to discuss them is here. --Tuvalkin (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

First reaction on German project site: If someone wants to change BSicon names in the Bilderkatalog it must be discussed on the German project site (in German). Trying to negotiate ... ;-) axpdeHello! 17:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I’m assuming that you’re saying that you’re trying to negotiate, not suggesting I should. Concerning said negotiation, I think that names of images in Commons should be discussed in Commons — possibly in Esperanto, if language is the matter. No project “owns” the files in Commons!

But I knew it would happend, and the last thing I wanted to do is wasting time butting heads with wp:de. As a member of FotW (an unrelated project), I had an indirect whiff of how those discussions go, and the smell was quite foul…

So, to avoid all that, I created the new icons (although obviously meant to be integrated with the already existing dash lines icons in GRENZE) with a separate nameGRENZE2, so that their names and use could be dealt with before tackling the matters of renaming the GRENZEs.

Thanks Axpde for deleting GRENZE2q, forcing any work about the topology of boundary lines and railways to use the misnamed, to-be-renamed GRENZE icons. Happy negotiation!

I think he meant (exGRENZE_legende). Such a difference a couple of letters can make... (Although, I personally think that exGRENZE_legende is not a good name, and would vote for replacement of it with GRENZE2q in that the latter is part of a consistent naming scheme.) Useddenim (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Useddenim, Axpde surely meant the (ineptly named) (exGRENZE legende) icon, and I appologize for reacting hotly. However I still think that the GRENZE family of icons needs discussion, and that deleting one of the experimental icons was a bad start for such discussion. Please (both) come share your views at Category talk:Icons for railway descriptions/experimental/borders. --Tuvalkin (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. My deletion of BSicon_GRENZE2q.svg is according to commons rules that there should be no upload of an exact copy under a new name at all! axpdeHello! 09:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean that if I had used a slightly different shade of black or a slightly different dashline geometry for the GRENZE2 icon set we would not be in this mess? …Just wow. I guess that’s why they created en:WP:IAR, now I get it. --Tuvalkin (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think we missunderstood each other: I disagree with the need of substituting "_GRENZE", the dashed line was originally invented to show an erstwhile border, and that's what – at least in :w:de: – it is still used for.

GRENZE is a point of interest same as BHF or DST, so it should be dealt with accordingly: Usually there's a straigth track with that point of interest, if that track is removed we add "_legende" to the icon name. It wasn't the best idea the inventors had, but they thought those icons would be needed rather rarely, esp. in the legend to rdts.

And sorry again, I didn't want to imply that you have problems to differ pre- and suffixes, I wanted to say that we shouldn't care, whether there's anyone anywhere who isn't able to now the difference.

Please be asured that I don't have any hard feelings about you and your new icons, I'm just trying hard to keep icons named consistently ... axpdeHello! 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Axpde, your actions so far show how soft or hard your feelings about me and my new icons are; I’m always ready to assume I’m the one being paranoid and grumpy and the others are cudly angels in good faith. You deleted one icon in a set (a set categorized as experimental!!) before even bothering to discuss it, as if speedy delete took less time than other milder forms of internvention (like Template:Duplicate); then you deleted it again, salted the ground for the filename BSicon GRENZE2q.svg and caused that now using the GRENZE2 set become needlessly unintuitive and time-consuming.

So, are you in good faith? I hope so, and I’m as easy to convince of that as of its contrary: Do you think the names I created suck? Suggest better ones. (It would be grand if you do so now, before I upload the shaded versions — half the trouble renaming them.)

As I said before, I was short in time and tried to avoid a “fait accompli”. I admit at first I didn't saw a need for two different sets of GRENZE icons, but I understand that those dashed lines have become very popular for different meanings. That's why I introduced your suggestions to :w:de: and :w:en: to see what they think about it.

I wouldn't say your names “suck”, it's just that reading "GRENZE2" I'd expect to see a red line plus the dashed line and no overlay icon. If the others aggree to introduce a new prefix as "o" or "l", your icons should be named "{ex}oGRENZE2" resp. "{ex}lGRENZE2" and so on. axpdeHello! 09:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

1) Type or purpose: it doesn't really matter, as long as the icon is clearly identified.

2) Even if Axpde was within the letter of the rules, a case can now be made for renaming exGRENZE legende because i) it does not accurately describe what it is supposed to depict; and ii) this one icon does not fit within the naming conventions the new icon category.

↑GRZ is the root for the railway feature version: (GRENZE). This separation (though it could be effected for clarity) is generally not needed for road icons.

↑Or whatever the root for the diagonal KRZ was becoming (It is KRX, as you well know. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC))

↑I was intending to introduce ABZT for this ABZ variant used on some other icons (e.g. footpaths and roads). ABZC would have been used for canal filled versions

↑Non-rail features don't require the elaborate system that stems from the ENDE root. This generalization works just fine for our purposes, and allows compounding so as to not clash with the f/g/r/l system.

↑In my expanded system, "+" would have been used to compound layered roots the way "-" is currently used for parallel tracks. These are abbreviated forms of "GRZa+GRZqa". The system is entirely modular and allows for, e.g. GRZ2a+e.

Concerning the rootname, something like GRZ is especially welcome because it allows the system to run away from the de:wp aberrant notion that

(GRENZE)

is equivalent to

(BHF)

(eGRENZE)

(eBHF)

I'm surprised Circeus didnt cover this point, and that the source of all worrying was not included: The unsystematicly named (exGRENZE legende). (When the GRENZE2 proposal was created, Axpde puzzlingly reacted with exemplary speed to delete the logically named (GRENZE2q) — while other duplicates and near duplicates have been around for years.) -- Tuválkin✉ 23:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I was (if vaguely) aware of this issue, but I never got to the point of really considering that particular mess back when I was working on the renaming project, so I never figured it out. Although I do like the ZOLL/GRZ split idea (eGRENZE could even be styled as a KRZ-style icon), I have my doubts since this probably can't be enacted without de:'s approval. AFAICT they don't really care for whatever we name the complicated icons because they overall use a rather restricted set. Circeus (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought, but what about (GRENZE2) → (GSTR) instead of (GRENZE2) → (STR-GRZ)? (I.e. a G prefix instead of -GRZ suffix.) AlgaeGraphix (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that prefixes should be kept to a minimum. Plus this is already full of icons that have no matches in STR land (the 8 stubs and 6 square angles, +4 if you count the straight ABZs). Thesuffix system has the advantage of (relatively) easily extending to other non-railway icons currently not covered by lowercase prefixes (i.e. rivers, roads—which come in at least 8 variations already!—, those footway links icons used by some asian network templates, and I'm sure there's weirder stuff floating around) Circeus (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, this set is fully independent from GRENZE now, as (lGRZq) is different (white vs. transparent) from (exGRENZE legende) so it cannot be deleted under the excuse of uniqueness, as before. There’s also a (lZOLL) and a (exlZOLL) — we can say good bye to GRENZE. -- Tuválkin✉ 21:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess that no business of mine, but... why (exlGRZlf+rg) (& (exlGRZlg+rf))? Maybe (exlGRZ+12) or something like that? Doesn't look like your later (exlGRZlf)... YLSS (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that’s a left over from the previous naming scheme. It used "+" as an overlay connector, and the radial stubs were, say, "lg", meaning both left- and back-wards — I did that back then because things like "lg" were being deprecated in favour of things like "+l". That was never done, and meanwhile we created even more icons (the new colors) with that “deprecated” scheme. When I wanted to conflate "GRENZE2" and (the meanwhile added) "GRENZE", there was a naming conflic, so I had to back pedal to the more conservative (even if deprecated) naming scheme. -- Tuválkin✉ 20:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(exlGRENZE) is a redirect to the old icon, which I had been introducing previously and quite in many places;

(lGRZq) is a new icon, which I've begun introducing lately;

(GRZq) is a redirect to the old icon, which has also gained some limited usage.

I suppose no. 1 should be redirected to the new icon (unless somebody would regard as detrimental the possible discrepancies between neighbouring (eGRENZE) & (lGRZq) - with and without background), while the usage of no. 3 should be replaced, and the name freed for (eGRENZE)? Or possibly all existent "Generation 3" borders should be renamed from "lGRZ" to "GRZ" while they still haven't gained wider usage? P.S. There are also (BHF+GRENZE2), (HST+GRENZE2), (tBHF+GRENZE2), (tHST+GRENZE2), which, if we extend Circeus's proposal, would become (GRBHF) etc. PPS. (eGRENZE+WBRÜCKE) -> (GRWBRÜCKE) ?? YLSS (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Concerning YLSS’s questions above, I have nothing against removing the "l" preffix. Indeed I now think we’re better served with an independent root with its independent semantics, than with naming these "lGRZ", which, as pointed out, leaves room to wonder what unpreffixed "GRZ" is. Wherever a boundary line meets a railroad (or canal etc.), it will be a simple crossing, a parallel (synonym) stretch, an inflection point, or a triple (or quadruple, etc.) point — as such, overlaying of independent icons seems to be the way to go, using for any needed coumpound icon filenames made from "+"-linked independent icon names. Therefore my current doctrine on this matter is:

Good gracious! It's fortunate that I asked this now and not later... OK, then I'll switch to using just GRZq. I'll leave renaming/re-uploading to you, however, pending the question of background etc. YLSS (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And also: since we already extensively use "+" to mean "from", maybe we could employ another symbol for composition? e.g. " * "? I don't think that would pose any more problems that using "+". And that would resemble " ※ " in {{BS-o}}. So: (BHF*GRZq)? YLSS (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

While the plus sign is not as simple to handle in a filename as an "a" or a "b", it doesn’t pose any serious problems. The asterisk, on the other hand, being used as a string wildcard in most OSs, is completely unusable. Even if we could push it in a MW filename, it would always be escaped (to "%2A" or some such fallback) when uploaded — a very bad idea.

Fortunately, the dual use of "+" in our filenames is disambiguated both in semantics and syntax: When it connects a direction indicator suffix to another or to the icon ID root, it means "from", while when it separates two icon ID roots (each with their suffixes and prefixes), it means "over". Seems to be failproof. (I’m sure this was mentioned not so recently.)

“Lead, follow, or get out of the way”, but don’t just continue to say “No”. If you’re not going to add anything constructive to this discussion about the rationalization of the naming of GRENZE icons, the least you can do is to stop being an obstruction. Useddenim (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Really, Axpde... I welcome you whenever you resurface, and will be really glad if there is more constructive discussion from your side, but... I have a strong impression that the Bilderkatalog is virtually dead... None of my requests at de.wp (incl. at your talk page) to comment about the ÜW icons were answered, and none complained in the least after I had renamed them (which was unexpected in light of this discussion). I had even considered removing that Bilderkatalog tag as I replace the licenses with PD-shape... BTW, would you similarly protest if I rename (ABZlf) to ABZgl? ;) YLSS (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose all you want, Axpde. This project of having rational boundary lines’ BSicons already took off and it can be further developed and used without even knowing that the "GRENZE" family ever existed (focusing only on separate, clear and unambiguous "GRZ" and "TOLL"). This happend, by the way, in spite of your incredibly uncivil role in the matter. Now, if you disagree about this, then undo it — who cares? -- Tuválkin✉ 02:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It works better than I imagined! -- Tuválkin✉ 02:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I see that both of you are pro-background, I'm neutral, but what about those cases as in links that I posted above? And also, what's better: vs. ? YLSS (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it looks better with the while lines showing. We could have duplicated icons, maybe GRZ and GGRZ (Grenze with gap), to be used interchangeably, at least for a while? -- Tuválkin✉ 02:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! About [3], you’re right that the naming should be uniform, but we need to decide about having a transparent gap or a white gap. For now, (lGRZq)v.s (GRZq) allows people to chose which of those they prefer; warning ppl not to use one of them based on its faulty name is, for now, a bad idea. -- Tuválkin✉ 22:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course we should decide that. Should have already decided it, actually. So, my thoughts as of now:

I think it's really unnecessary to have two parallel sets, with and without background. The difference is pretty negligible, and I can live happily with either version.

If the consensus would indeed be for two sets, than it certainly shouldn't be GRZ vs. lGRZ – that's cryptic! Possibly MGRZ, like (lhMABZq2+1), but again, I don't see a need in that.

So, if I understood you right, you are for parallel sets with & without background, MGRZ & GRZ respectively? Well, I'm not against that... P.S. I hope you didn't mean that you find NULf vs. lNULf system a good one?YLSS (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes
and Neutral
. I understand the underlying logic of (NULf) overlaying a coloured line and (lNULf) being a free-standing symbol, but that doesn’t make it the best of naming schemes. Useddenim (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Namely: (vGRZ-), (v-GRZ), (GRZq-), (-GRZq), (GRZl+g), (GRZr+g), (GRZf+l), (GRZf+r). In these, I have used #F9F9F9 as background masking (so that it does not stand out against common background, only against tracks). Also (I think) a bit better coding in (GRZr+g) & co. in comparison to (GRENZE2rg) & co. The names for the second quadruplet derive from Useddenim's proposal here. YLSS (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)